4.5 Review

Design standards for experimental and field studies to evaluate diagnostic accuracy of tests for infectious diseases in aquatic animals

期刊

JOURNAL OF FISH DISEASES
卷 41, 期 5, 页码 729-749

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jfd.12792

关键词

aquatic animals; design standards; diagnostic accuracy; fish; sensitivity and specificity

资金

  1. Fisheries Research and Development Corporation [2015-045]
  2. Canada Excellence Research Chair in Aquatic Epidemiology
  3. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
  4. Department of Agriculture and Water Resources, Australia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Design and reporting quality of diagnostic accuracy studies (DAS) are important metrics for assessing utility of tests used in animal and human health. Following standards for designing DAS will assist in appropriate test selection for specific testing purposes and minimize the risk of reporting biased sensitivity and specificity estimates. To examine the benefits of recommending standards, design information from published DAS literature was assessed for 10 finfish, seven mollusc, nine crustacean and two amphibian diseases listed in the 2017 OIE Manual of Diagnostic Tests for Aquatic Animals. Of the 56 DAS identified, 41 were based on field testing, eight on experimental challenge studies and seven on both. Also, we adapted human and terrestrial-animal standards and guidelines for DAS structure for use in aquatic animal diagnostic research. Through this process, we identified and addressed important metrics for consideration at the design phase: study purpose, targeted disease state, selection of appropriate samples and specimens, laboratory analytical methods, statistical methods and data interpretation. These recommended design standards for DAS are presented as a checklist including risk-of-failure points and actions to mitigate bias at each critical step. Adherence to standards when designing DAS will also facilitate future systematic review and meta-analyses of DAS research literature.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据